When Archbishop Rembert Weakland died on August 22 at the age of ninety-five, the New York Times and Washington Post published long obituaries of the former archbishop of Milwaukee. They both recounted his once-prominent place in Catholic life and his dramatic resignation for having used Church money to settle a suit threatening to expose an affair he had with a man years earlier. Reading these obituaries, I was sent back to what I had written over a decade ago in a foreword to Pilgrim in a Pilgrim’s Church (2009, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), Weakland’s memoir and mea culpa. I was reminded that in helping to edit and cut the manuscript, I witnessed Weakland’s struggle to explain, describe, and “come clean” about his homosexuality and about Milwaukee’s sex-abuse problem. Our phone conversations included long pauses over lacunae in the narrative, phrases and sentences that needed emphasis, and others that needed toning down. Some may say this is not the whole story—what memoir is?—but it was the story he was able to tell after an extended and painful examination of his life and conscience and a search for true contrition. I was not empowered to offer absolution, but I was willing to write the following introduction and would do it again if I could pick up the phone and talk to him about his final years.
Weakland’s funeral Mass, celebrated on August 30 at Mater Christi Chapel in St. Francis, was picketed by several sex-abuse survivors. According to a news report, the protesters displayed photos of some seventy-five priests who they claimed were sex abusers during Weakland’s tenure. One of the protesters objected to the Cathedral Mass, saying, “It should have been a private funeral.” In truth, I was heartened that the protestor would countenance even a private funeral. It is sad that he and so many others suffer not only their original abuse, but life in a Church where the sex-abuse scandal has become semi-permanent, and where barriers to forgiveness and atonement seem insurmountable.
The following is a lightly edited version of my foreword to Weakland’s book, reprinted with Eerdmans’s permission.
In spring 2002, on a visit to Milwaukee, I sat down to dinner with Archbishop Rembert Weakland. The storm over clerical sexual abuse was blowing full force. As editor of Commonweal, I wanted to hear the views of a seasoned churchman on the scandal that was tearing the Catholic Church apart. However many facts he might willingly share—or not—in an interview with a journalist, I anticipated an informed assessment from a man deeply familiar with the ins-and-outs of the Vatican and of the Catholic Church in the United States.
Archbishop Weakland readily acknowledged the gravity of the scandal, conveying in some detail his own longstanding effort to resolve cases of clerical sexual abuse of minors in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Though he was following the canonical procedures set down in Church law, he told me that his efforts to dismiss these priests were regularly rebuffed by Vatican officials. The archbishop was also troubled by the failure of some bishops to take matters in hand during earlier exposés of clerical abuse cases. While some adopted the guidelines proposed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or devised their own, others did little or nothing to deal with their clergy abusers. All these distinctions were lost in the revelations that emerged in early 2002 about the Archdiocese of Boston, and then many other locales. Everywhere Catholic dioceses were under siege, and all bishops were under suspicion.
The dilemma the archbishop described was troubling, and it was not his dilemma alone. If a knowledgeable Vatican insider like Weakland had not succeeded in convincing Rome, what could ordinary bishops do with priests who had abused children and yet could not be dismissed from the clergy? Moving them from parish to parish, even after what was purported to be successful treatment, led to repeat offenses; isolating them from children proved practically impossible and therefore was no guarantee of safety. On the civil rather than canonical side of the law much might have been done—as we now see—but local police and prosecutors were often reluctant, in Milwaukee as elsewhere, to bring child-abuse cases to a courtroom—even if parents were to agree to the notoriety of a public forum. Psychological and pastoral issues weighed heavily on how a bishop assessed and dealt with conflicting charges and denials. But in 2002, all nuance was lost in a cascade of accusations.
Please email comments to [email protected] and join the conversation on our Facebook page.